News:

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!We hope you had a blessed Pascha and Bright Week. The OCNet Forum is operating in “Beta Mode” due to a major systems upgrade. A maintenance window is currently in effect and users should expect downtime starting at 0300 EDT on Friday the 24th of May.

We've been discussing this for some time as word was leaked about his plan, but in regards to the article itself, I like that the Tribune pointed out that the main difference was not the change from Latin to the vernacular, but the changing of the priest's position so that he faced the people rather than the altar. This symbolized the change in focus from a liturgy sung to God to a liturgy designed to cater to the laity's felt needs.

As far as I can tell, Pope Benedict's restoration of the old liturgy is not a reinstitution of the Latin language but rather a move back toward having the priest face the altar and thus sing with the people to God. This is a major move toward having a more orthodox liturgy in the Catholic church.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

"Latin" mass? The connotation of this term is that the main emphasis is on the language of the Mass - Latin - which means a language. They should be using some other term like the "Roman" mass or maybe even invent some new term for the ritual.

...a move back toward having the priest face the altar and thus sing with the people to God. This is a major move toward having a more orthodox liturgy in the Catholic church.

Happily agreed

Hope the Roman Catholics start building their Churches to face east again. There is one near here that faces due west which has always puzzled me as obviously if they can build it facing due west then they could have built it facing due east could they not?

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

Does this not affect all Christians indirectly? Our doctrinal differences will remain but is not the Latin mass Orthodox? Perhaps in the eyes of God more Christians will be worshipping closer "in Spirit and in truth."

I honestly don't believe it really matters. What is important are the differences in doctrine. Anyway, the article linked to says this

Quote

"So, this is simply allowing [the Latin mass] to re-emerge, without the anticipation that it's going to be a frequent occurrence or have a major impact on the way Catholics worship on a given Sunday.

"I think the vast majority of Catholics have accepted the reforms and appreciate that it's in their own language and the priest is facing the people. Then, there are other people [who] yearn for a more transcendent experience of the liturgy," he said. "To them, sometimes the way the newer ritual has been implemented has been more of a casual fashion."

So one could question how much this will even affect the Catholic Church. People have to want this service. How many will? My guess is not that many.

Assume for a second this led to a resurgence in traditional Catholicism. I would assume the effect on us still would not be great, as it is my assumption that traditional Catholics would not have Orthodox friendly views on things like the Papacy, the councils, the Filioque, etc. Always look for the unintended consequences.

"Latin" mass? The connotation of this term is that the main emphasis is on the language of the Mass - Latin - which means a language. They should be using some other term like the "Roman" mass or maybe even invent some new term for the ritual.

I believe they have: "usus antiquior" or "ancient usage", which is in the accompanying letter.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Does this not affect all Christians indirectly? Our doctrinal differences will remain but is not the Latin mass Orthodox? Perhaps in the eyes of God more Christians will be worshipping closer "in Spirit and in truth."

Whether more will be using the 1962 missals, time will tell. They have already been using it, just some dioceses were trying to make it difficult to near impossible for those who wanted to worship in the old forms.

As for the Latin mass being Orthodox? For the 1962 missals, I'd say - no, not uncorrected they aren't. There is an Orthodox Latin rite - the Overbeck rite being the Latin standard (as was the normative rite for the Orthodox Diocese of Moravia and Silesia, as well as the Orthodox Diocese of Hrodno.) That rite was approved by the Holy Synod of Russia twice in the 19th c. It restores the original Nicene Creed, restores a prayer of Invocation in the Canon (as does the 1970 Roman Mass), as well as a few other changes. The 1962, however, is closer to Orthodox than the 1970 - many believe the 1970 would be unsuited, or even impossible, to adapt for use by Orthodox Christians.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

To Wellodox reply #8: I do not necessarily disagree with you but perhaps I should have clarified my post within the context of mutual humility and good willed Christians whether they be Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. I personally am not an ecumenist and dread many (not all) current trends. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit knows Christians better than us will take account of all of us. Perhaps with the potential of more Christians worshipping "in Spirit and in truth" observing the "golden rule" and the 2 great commandments good things will happen.

"Latin" mass? The connotation of this term is that the main emphasis is on the language of the Mass - Latin - which means a language. They should be using some other term like the "Roman" mass or maybe even invent some new term for the ritual.

Of course you're right, and it is only a misleading and unofficial term. After all, the 2002 missal can be celebrated in Latin. The rite is actually called the Roman rite, and the traditional form of it is now called the "extraordinary form" or the "celebration according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII." According to the current rubrics, it is to be in Latin, save the readings (optional) and homily.

A word of advice, folks---avoid all stories on this issue by the secular media, as they unfailingly spin, twist, and misreport things. And, frankly, they are all so predictable. That Tribune article is no exception. It came out of the secular media template for stories on the Catholic Church.

A blogger has helpfully provided them with this:Build your own Motu Proprio story

With the upcoming release of the Motu Proprio liberalizing the Tridentine rite you can expect a surge of articles in the MSM getting things wrong. As a service to the MSM I will give them a Motu Proprio boilerplate that they can arrange as they want with just the right spin, or is that rite spin, so that it fits into their normal templates. This boilerplate has enough mistakes and biases it make it indistinguishable from any other MSM article that will be appearing in the coming days.

-Some people feel nostalgic for the Latin Mass.

-In the Latin Mass the priest faces away from the congregation and prays, sometimes in a whisper, in Latin, a language unfamiliar to most of the world’s one billion Roman Catholics. Unlike in the new Mass which is celebrated in the vernacular with the priests facing their congregations.

-Because two generations of American Catholics are accustomed to hearing the Mass celebrated in English, it's unlikely most will want to switch to a liturgy that is longer, more formal and celebrated in a language they don't understand.

-Pope Benedict is taking the church back to before Vatican II and removing the reforms of the Council. Liberal, reform-minded Catholics are concerned about these rollbacks to progress made.

-Some prayer for the Tridentine liturgy are offensive to Jews.

-The Rev. <Insert Jesuit of choice> said <insert attack on the Tridentine rite>.

-The groundbreaking Second Vatican Council opened the door to worship in the local vernacular.

-The Latin Mass involves a diminished role for women as altar servers and eliminates progress made in women's equality since Vatican II.

-These changes will only aggravate declining Mass attendance by introducing a liturgy not relevant to the times.

-Insert comment by former America editor Thomas Reese now a fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. (Make sure you mention he was forced out of the editorship by Pope Benedict.) If you can't get in touch with Thomas Reese for a direct quote just mention something about clash of cultures between conservative priests and liberal congregations.

-Pope Benedict has been receiving resistance from the Bishops in France, England, and Wales who worry about the change dividing the church.

-But liberals are deeply wary because a number of the rite's adherents are associated with ultra conservative groups that oppose the radical reforms ushered in by the Council.

-The proponents of the old Latin mass are said to number no more than 2 percent of Catholics, and polls show that the majority of Catholics embrace the reforms of Vatican II. There seems to be no demand for it.

-Insert a comment from a proponent of the Tridentine Rite at the bottom of your piece.

-Just mix and match and you will have a story ready to go to press in minutes. If you need some more fluff you can always mention once again how no one knows Latin anymore. You can always do a man in the street interview outside of a Catholic Church after Mass. Though contrary to what you might think don't ask younger Catholics their opinion on this, look for someone with gray hair to get a good quote on why this change is bad.

Well - we Orthodox have the Gallican ... and the Roman. The Roman rite is older than any heresy, and the truth is that it is *little changed* by any errors. In fact, the conservatism with the Roman rite is much more present than with the Byzantine rite (which underwent greater changes over the same period of time.) Strangely enough, our oldest liturgical texts are Western rite - older than the oldest existing Byzantine text. With the filioque, all that changed in the Roman rite was - the filioque in two Creeds, and a few references to dual procession in a few later hymns. Those are (and were) easily corrected.

The problem with the Gallican is that there are too few places that celebrate it. The reconstructed Gallican in Europe was still undergoing revision, and still needs some, as we know more about the Gallican today than when they began celebrating the rite decades ago. The only surviving Gallican rite today in the Roman Catholic Church is the Mozarabic. It is much reduced, and was 'reformed' about 15 years ago. (Though the old books are still around.)

Something many people also overlook: the Roman rite is actually Gallo-Roman, being a merging of the two traditions. There are strong arguments for the greater part of Gregorian chant being Gallican. Depending on the use, some Roman masses are more Gallican than others (ie, the French uses, the English uses and the traditions coming from them, the uses of Scandinavia and the Low Countries.) "Gothic" is the form that came out of Romanesque with the merging of the two early liturgical cultures of Gallican and Roman. So - in a sense, if one is doing traditional Roman (as we do here - Sarum style), they are also doing Gallican.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

You need to do your research. It was Gallican Spain that inserted the Filioque in the first place, then Gallican France which adopted it and eventually got it inserted in the Roman Liturgy which resisted it the longest. It was also the Old Believers who kept the Liturgy of St. Peter (Byzantine Liturgy with Roman Canon) alive while all others had abandoned and forgot its use.

"restores a prayer of Invocation in the Canon (as does the 1970 Roman Mass)"

I think you should say adds a Byzantine explicit descending Epiclesis to the Roman Canon's implicit ascending Epiclesis. Both St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Nicholas Cabasilas recognize this prayer as epiclectic:

P. Most humbly we implore You, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your Holy Angel to Your altar above, before the face of Your Divine Majesty. And may those of us who by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing, Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Also only the new Eucharistic Prayers use the descending Epiclesis the Roman Canon was unchanged in this regard.

I think I mispoke on St. Maximos, confusing this with his words on the Filioque. St. Nicholas Cabasilas in his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy in #30 addresses the fact that this prayer is an Epiclesis.

Speaking of that, check out the new translation of this part of the Roman Canon/Eucharistic Prayer 1 for the Novus Ordo (or the "ordinary form" of the rite, as it is now properly called). Here's what it is currently:

Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.

Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek.

Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing. [Through Christ our Lord. Amen.]

Be pleased to look upon them,with a serene and kindly gaze,and to accept themas you were pleased to acceptthe gifts of your just servant Abel,the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith,and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek,a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.

In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God,bid that these gifts be borneby the hands of your holy Angelto your altar on highin the sight of your divine majesty,that all of us who receivethe most holy Body and Blood of your Sonthrough this sharing at the altarmay be filled with every grace and blessing fromabove.Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Indeed! To me, the news of the new translation last year was as joyous as the MP.

Meanwhile, a blogger was recently able to come across a draft of Bishop Donald Trautman's translation (which, for reasons unexplained, was not adopted):

Mass of Trautman

Priest: Uhm, like, hey guys, we need to, you know, get started, so let’s do the cross thingy OK, so now we’re gonna say sorry and stuff to God because, you know what? Nobody’s perfect.

All: I’m sorry if anything I did was offensive. I didn’t mean to hurt anyone. My bad.

Priest: Ok, let’s, like, talk to God now and listen to the stories in the book.

Lector: [lector reads the day’s selection] This is from that book from God.

All: Thanks God.

Cantor: Now you all are gonna repeat after me, like row row row your boat and I’ll sing some stuff from the book.

Priest: Uhm, This next part is really important so let’s everybody stand up and do the cross thingy on our heads, mouths and chest.

Hey, peace y’all.

All: Right back atcha.

[the priest reads the Gospel of the day]

Priest: Jesus did this.

All: Thanks Jesus.

Priest: [gives pastoral, easily comprehensible homily]

Priest: Hey guys, now let’s say that long thing that talks about what we think about and stuff.

All: We like God. God is cool and really nice because He made me and this whole world - which by the way - we are totally polluting and it’s getting hot.

Jesus was born in a little barn and every Christmas we have a play during church but then he died. But you know what? He loves me and wants me to be happy.

There’s this spirit that talks to us in a book and he makes things live.

I like my church because everyone here is so nice and the priest is nice and we sing nice songs about nice stuff and later when we get old and icky, after we die, we all get to go to heaven with Jesus. He’s really cool by the way. Amen.

Priest: Now let’s pray for a bunch of stuff.

[intentions are prayed]

Priest: hey you guys in the back? Can y’all carry that basket and pitcher up here? That’d help a lot. Thanks.

Priest: Hey y’all, be peaceful and stuff.

All: You too.

Priest: Let’s pray to God and, you know.

All: yeah, that’d be nice.

Priest: You know what? Angels and stuff sing to God so let’s sing along with them.

All: Hey God. You are way bigger than us. You make the world happy. We love you big guy. YAY! Jesus liked you and he was cool. YAY!

Priest: A long time ago, at dinner, Jesus gave His friend’s some bread and wine and stuff.

Because Jesus likes us, He wants us to have bread and wine too.

God wants us to have this snack also.

And you know what?

We really like snacks so let’s tell God and Jesus and that Spirit gal thanks.

All: Yeah...Thanks.

[all present themselves for communion]

Priest: (holding out a wicker basket) Uhm, like, here’s some bread for you from God.

Recipient: Yum, that’s good and nutty, is it whole grain by the way? I like it. Now where’s that dude with the vino?

This is starting to sound like the joke about the newbie priest whose monsignor encouraged him to calm his nerves with a little vodka before he preached his first homily. Upon returning to his office after Mass and lunch, the new priest saw a note from the monsignor posted on the office door. The note said such things as the following:

"We do not speak of the Holy Trinity as the Old Man, the Kid, and the Spook."

"We do not bless a meal with the prayer 'Rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub. YAY, God!"

I think you should say adds a Byzantine explicit descending Epiclesis to the Roman Canon's implicit ascending Epiclesis.

Wrong - restores a Western explicit descending epiclesis to the Roman canon. No Eastern rite has an epiclesis, but an epiklesis. The Latin form with the 'c' is normally reserved for speaking of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit in Western rites, the Greek form with the 'k' for Oriental rites. The Antiochians have a Byzantine epiklesis, but I'm not Antiochian Western rite and do not speak for them. I refer rather to the Russian Western rite (which is older.) We have one priest who uses the Byzantine form (a Benedictine.)

The invocation restored in our Western rite is:

And here we, Thy servants, offer the gifts that Thou hast commanded for our salvation, that Thou mayest be pleased to send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice that It may be duly and properly changed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in the transformation of the Body + and Blood + of our Lord, Jesus Christ and that It may be for us who partake thereof, Life eternal and the everlasting Kingdom through the same Jesus Christ our Lord Who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.

It is another Gallican element in an already Romano-Gallican liturgy. The prayer specifically is the Invocation of the Throne of St. Peter from the Missale Gothicum.

Quote

Both St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Nicholas Cabasilas recognize this prayer as epiclectic:

That was not the point of either of their arguments. Rather, they simply said that the presence of the prayer indicates that the Roman Church of the time also understood the Holy Spirit to be affecting the change, against criticisms that had come from Roman clergy against Byzantine liturgy. Neither of those Saints actually said that the prayer performs the same function as an explicit descending epiclesis.

Quote

Also only the new Eucharistic Prayers use the descending Epiclesis the Roman Canon was unchanged in this regard.

The new Eucharistic Prayers are also the Roman rite (the Ordinary rite, per the M.P.) But, that is all besides the point - the epiclesis is a Gallican feature (and most scholars believe originally a Roman feature, as we have contemporary witnesses in the early Roman church as to its existence). There is enough reason for us to consider both Supplices te rogamus and Quam oblationem as incomplete on their own, but indicative of the missing epiclesis. Catholic liturgists in the past have agreed, and postulated the loss of the epiclesis due to the rise in popularity of the theory that the change is affected by the Words of Institution.

The point is - in Orthodoxy the Gallican and Roman stand side by side, not in opposition: and in fact, the two are not separate from each other as traditions. They are both Latin rites, and influenced each other.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Wrong - restores a Western explicit descending epiclesis to the Roman canon. No Eastern rite has an epiclesis, but an epiklesis. The Latin form with the 'c' is normally reserved for speaking of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit in Western rites, the Greek form with the 'k' for Oriental rites. The Antiochians have a Byzantine epiklesis, but I'm not Antiochian Western rite and do not speak for them. I refer rather to the Russian Western rite (which is older.) We have one priest who uses the Byzantine form (a Benedictine.)

Wow, if I split hairs like this over every mispeled word...

I guess I'd better go put away my icons now; they must be Western too.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

I guess I'd better go put away my icons now; they must be Western too.

You misunderstand, it is an accepted convention of spelling in liturgics. Epiclesis has been used for the better part of two centuries when discussing prayers of Invocation to the Holy Spirit *in the Western rites*. Epiklesis has always been used normatively when discussing the similar prayer in the Eastern rites.

But it isn't about mispelling, but about trolls who want to moan about how 'Byzantinized' us Western Rite Orthodox are, and don't bother to get their facts straight. Of course, I'm a little peeved - I get pretty sick of people who don't have a clue trying to tell me what I believe or how I pray, or lecturing again and again on how 'Byzantinized' we are for having an explicit descending epiclesis. Nor the fact that explicit epiclesis is normative for many Western traditions (High Church Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.)

« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 12:54:25 PM by Aristibule »

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

But it isn't about mispelling, but about trolls who want to moan about how 'Byzantinized' us Western Rite Orthodox are, and don't bother to get their facts straight.

I would hardly call Deacon Lance a "troll" in any way, shape, or form. It's quite possible to disagree with someone about liturgics without having to resort to throwing a fit about it and stooping to ad hominems, my friend.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I would hardly call Deacon Lance a "troll" in any way, shape, or form. It's quite possible to disagree with someone about liturgics without having to resort to throwing a fit about it and stooping to ad hominems, my friend.

It isn't an ad hominem, nor is it a disagreement over liturgics - what I'm upset with is the false accusation that we use a Byzantine epiklesis. We don't have a Byzantine epikelsis, full stop. I've explained that numerous times on this forum, the same information is available elsewhere on the internet (which is down this morning for some reason.) So, it appears purely contrarian and attempt to start an argument - that is trolling.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

It isn't an ad hominem, nor is it a disagreement over liturgics - what I'm upset with is the false accusation that we use a Byzantine epiklesis. We don't have a Byzantine epikelsis, full stop. I've explained that numerous times on this forum, the same information is available elsewhere on the internet (which is down this morning for some reason.) So, it appears purely contrarian and attempt to start an argument - that is trolling.

And calling someone a troll when his only crime is to disagree with the opinions of others on what is already a controversial subject (or am I troll for thinking that the WR is still controversial?) and who has been an active contributor of this forum for years is an ad hominem.

In fact, it's definitive.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 02:40:11 PM by Schultz »

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

And calling someone a troll when his only crime is to disagree with the opinions of others on what is already a controversial subject (or am I troll for thinking that the WR is still controversial?) and who has been an active contributor of this forum for years is an ad hominem.

In fact, it's definitive.

Again, the issue was not disagreeing - it was with his false accusation that we insert a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon. WE DO NOT. Pointing out that making the false accusation is trolling is NOT ad hominem. However, in this case, you are simply being argumentative, as you have argued past the reason I'm complaining in the first place. I should note, however, that your behavior is definitive cult behavior - attack the victim.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Again, the issue was not disagreeing - it was with his false accusation that we insert a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon. WE DO NOT. Pointing out that making the false accusation is trolling is NOT ad hominem. However, in this case, you are simply being argumentative, as you have argued past the reason I'm complaining in the first place.

FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with you! I don't think the WR has a "byzantinized" epi[insert letter]lesis, either. However, I can most definitely see why some people (including Deacon Lance) would think as much.

I just don't like seeing people I respect called trolls because they disagree with your assessment. If that were the case, most of the people on here would be "trolls".

Quote

I should note, however, that your behavior is definitive cult behavior - attack the victim.

Who's attacking you? Is Deacon Lance attacking you because he thinks otherwise than you or other WRO on this matter? I'm disagreeing with your tactics and rhetoric. Please point out in any of my posts where I attacked your person. Indeed, I call on the moderators to gag me if I've broken any forum rules.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Please forgive my ignorance. I did indeed believe you were Western Rite Antiochian Orthodox . If you corrected me on this before I had forgotten. I must admit I was unaware there were any Western Rite parishes in the US other than the Antiochian's and the ROCOR Western Rite Monastery that has now moved to Canada.

Please be assured that I fully support the Western Rite Orthodox nor do I think that having a Byzantinization or two is being Byzantinized. However, I will stand by the belief that the Roman Canon is perfectly Orthodox just the way it is and this is witnessed by the Old Believers who used it without any extra epiclesis or epiklesis added.

The Novus Ordo Mass was one of the reasons that I converted to Holy Orthodoxy.

The first Mass I ever saw was Novus Ordo - I saw a Tridentine Mass only once before my baptism in Oct 2005. In 2006, I learned more about the Tridentine Mass, how it had been the Mass of the (Catholic) Church for centuries, and how the Consilium, headed by a suspected Freemason and six Protestants, reformed the Catholic Mass into an ecumenical, Protestant-friendly service. The city where I live only had a Tridentine Mass on one Sunday a month, when I wanted it every Sunday. I knew that the Orthodox Church had a beautiful, reverent, liturgy, so that's what led me to Orthodoxy.

Pointing out that making the false accusation is trolling is NOT ad hominem. However, in this case, you are simply being argumentative, as you have argued past the reason I'm complaining in the first place. I should note, however, that your behavior is definitive cult behavior - attack the victim.

Aristibule,I don't think anyone here is "trolling" or knowingly "making false accusations", or is "attacking you". It was a simple misunderstanding for which Deacon Lance has asked forgiveness.... that's all. OK, so he pushed the wrong button. He wasn't doing it deliberately. He wasn't baiting or flaming you. Lets keep things in perspective.George

« Last Edit: July 19, 2007, 08:13:59 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Please forgive my ignorance. I did indeed believe you were Western Rite Antiochian Orthodox . If you corrected me on this before I had forgotten. I must admit I was unaware there were any Western Rite parishes in the US other than the Antiochian's and the ROCOR Western Rite Monastery that has now moved to Canada.

Please be assured that I fully support the Western Rite Orthodox nor do I think that having a Byzantinization or two is being Byzantinized. However, I will stand by the belief that the Roman Canon is perfectly Orthodox just the way it is and this is witnessed by the Old Believers who used it without any extra epiclesis or epiklesis added.

Thank you, Fr. Deacon Lance. I'm sure you can understand how frustrating it is to constantly be accused of things one does not do. I've been pretty up front all the time that I am not AWRV. I do not speak for them, though I support their work. (To the rest of you - thanks for your misunderstanding. Again - it wasn't about being disagreed with, it was about being falsely accused. At this point - much of it did and does look like flaming or baiting - especially as no one gave Fr. Dcn. Lance time to respond, nor myself a chance to respond to his response. Wolves and vipers.) And yes, there is more than you know about with ROCOR. (I am, btw, the mediocre webmaster - as long as I can keep it going, for that monastery moving to Canada - http://www.christminster.org) - I'll try to update it while I'm on leave.

As for the Old Believer use of the Canon of St. Peter. From what I've read on it from Fr. John R. Shaw, there was a space left for an epiclesis in the Slavonic text - it isn't simply that it was without it, something was expected to be placed into that part of the liturgy beyond an 'implicit ascending' invocation. The evidence does not suggest that it was used without an epiclesis, but rather one was being inserted - whether borrowed from Byzantine sources, or a changeable epiclesis of the Gallican type: no one knows. However, whatever your or my opinion on the matter - the Holy Synod of Russia in 1870 did insist on the text containing an epiclesis in its Latin source text, and in all vernacular translations based upon that approved text. The epiclesis used in that case is a Latin text after the epiklesis attributed to St. John Chrysostom. That wouldn't make it the only prayer of St. John Chrysostom in the Roman rite, of course.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866